NationStates Jolt Archive

Admittedly, I called him a liar when he continually claimed I said things I've never said, but attacking my relationship with my mother is beyond the pale. While I actually caught him lying several times and can prove it, I would take back the actual word given the opportunity.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11671013&postcount=187
And so saith the little desperate man that would attack the credibility of his own mother in a public forum of complete strangers who have no relevance to his existence whatsoever, rather than concede a single point in a meaningless debate that would have cost him nothing to forfeit the point but he couldn't bring himself to do it ...

In addition, you'll find he's skipped all arguments and it's just fell into "You said this". "No, I didn't. Here's what I said." "Then you said this." "No, I didn't...", etc. Sadly it was an actual debate until he just started making things up. If you're wondering it's not just me. Smunkeeville and Grave_n_Idle have complained of exactly the same thing.

I only reminded him of conversations we have had in the past and his behavior then and the behavior now.

I didn't say anything about peeing. You are making more strawmen. The only waste excretion I've used in example is belching (a particularly good example here because in some societies belching is considered good while in others it is a big no-no). Consideration of other's expectations when we are the visitor is what I have been discussing since the beginning and I've repeatedly pointed that out, you make strawmen arguments to attack because you don’t have an argument against simple considerations and manners. Even your own mother was mad at you, she’s the one responsible for teaching your good manners or not, she thinks she failed with you in this regard, I agree with her.


I am pointing out the arguments you have made and what they combine to suggest. That's not a strawman. That's an argument. I'm not claiming you outright said these things, I'm claiming you said a lot of things that clearly combine to give a very negative view of breastfeeding in public.

My mother was mad at me for teaching my sister-in-law to breastfeed in her own home without hiding away. My sister-in-law is quite happy as is the rest of her family. My mother has no say in the matter.

Meanwhile, my mother also thinks it's rude to ask for help in a grocery store and cried when I did so. She thinks it's rude to ask for directions to a gate. Comparing yourself to my mother is quite appropriate, because she basically will disservice pretty much any family member to look better to society even to the put of putting them in danger physically and financially.

Do you deny making the argument that breastfeeding is selfish? Do you deny comparing breastfeeding in public to bringing a cow into a restaurant? Do you deny suggesting women feed their children in public restrooms against all reason? Is that the normal request of behaviors you like? Do you compare behaviors you like to bringing a cow into a restaurant to squirt milk directly from the teat into coffee or to feed directly from the teat? Absurd.

*Bolded for emphasis of point I was referring to specifically from each post, his and mine.

As you can see, He DID attack the credibility of his own mother as a witness against him... It is NOT flamebait if it is truth of events that occurred.

I only reminded him of conversations we have had in the past and his behavior then and the behavior now.



*Bolded for emphasis of point I was referring to specifically from each post, his and mine.

As you can see, He DID attack the credibility of his own mother as a witness against him... It is NOT flamebait if it is truth of events that occurred.

Seriously, you consider this an argument. I didn't attack her credibility. I described her. It was germaine to a discussion about breastfeeding when I brought it up, but your response was to attack that relationship then as well, which most would obviously consider below the belt. When you attacked the relationship, I pointed out that my mother thinks politeness means inconveniencing anyone even children in order to avoid asking a serviceperson for assistance. Those things really happened. They do not invite you to attack my relationship with my mother several months later.

However, I concede that it is not actionable, now that I remember the post. His original description did little for the memory as it was fairly inaccurate, but innaccuracy is not actionable. I'm silly in that talking about someone else's mother is below the belt, but I guess it's that whole Golden Rule thing in me.

EDIT: I take that back. He brought this up for the explicit purpose of attacking me. I could go from thread to thread talking about how in that same thread he repeatedly suggested there is no difference between a breastfeeding woman and a cow if we were talking about his views on women for example, but if I just piped in randomly to say something like "Everyone, here's a guy that thinks women are the same as cows" in a thread that had no relation, I suspect that might be actionable.

I agreed with your mother, Her position over your position, instead of letting that point stand (although it had no real value), you attacked your mother's ability to be considered a good witness against you and you tried to take away that meaningless point...

And THAT is what I referred to, precisely, and by referring to it instead of quoting it, I gave you a chance to concede the point again here without rehashing it in the public eye, but instead, you demanded that I quote you doing it, trying to pretend that it never occurred and you wouldn't do such a thing. But you did, and I remembered.

I agreed with your mother, Her position over your position, instead of letting the point stand (although it had no real value), you attacked your mother's ability to be a considered a good witness against you and your tried to take away that point away...

And THAT is what I referred to, precisely, and by referring to it instead of quoting it, I gave you a chance to concede the point again here without rehashing it in the public eye, but instead, you demanded that I quote you doing it, trying to pretend that it never occurred and you wouldn't do such a thing. But you did, and I remembered.

I'll leave it to the mods. You didn't just agree with my mother. You suggested you raised me poorly that day. This time you claim "I attacked her crediblity". I reasonably thought that you were referring to some incident where I claimed my mother is not credible, but it turns out you pointed to an incident where I simply disagree with her views.

I suggested that my mother and I don't share the same values in terms of what is considered polite. You dishonestly represented the post. I didn't attack my mother or you. I said you and she would likely agree on the subject of breastfeeding and the subject of what is polite. You agree that you would.

I'm happy to rehash it. It demonstrates what was actually said instead of your faulty interpretation suggesting I "attacked her credibility". If you can point to where in that post I mentioned whether or not she was believable or in the older post what would make it acceptable for you attack how my mother raised me.

Again, I leave this to the mods, but I would think that several months later suggesting I attacked my mother is a rather poor excuse for baiting.

...Again, I leave this to the mods, but I would think that several months later suggesting I attacked my mother is a rather poor excuse for baiting.

It wasn't baiting, it was explaining why I believe that at a certain point you become irrational and cannot concede and I therefore regarded further debate with you pointless.

Immediately after the post you brought here and reported me for I said this:

...
As to the rest of it, You have no shame Sir, You twist and squirm and you think you have wiggled out of your own position and into a more defendable one. But really, we both know, your position changes as the wind blows, only you never concede, you can’t concede, you are perhaps incapable of it? I wonder.

I was attempting to rebut your accusations that I was bowing out because you won via better argument, I was trying to bow out because you are/were irrational and I saw no further point in continuing it.

It was not flamebait, it was self-defense and from your personal attacks against me and an attempt to remind you about how far you are willing to go to not concede any point and I knew it.

It wasn't baiting, it was explaining why I believe that at a certain point you become irrational and cannot concede and I therefore regarded further debate with you pointless.

Immediately after the post you brought here and reported me for I said this:



I was attempting to rebut your accusations that I was bowing out because you won via better argument, I was trying to bow out because you are/were irrational and I saw no further point in continuing it.

It was not flamebait, it was self-defense and from your personal attacks against me and an attempt to remind you about how far you are willing to go to not concede any point and I knew it.

Amusing. The mods can read the posts. I'm a long time poster here. My views on religion have not changed. You accused me of saying one thing and then quoted me saying another. When I pointed out that I still agree with what I said AND what you quote, but NOT with what your fallacious claim of what it said, you accused me of changing my mind. Apparently, continuing to state what I believe rather than your strawman is wriggling.

Meanwhile, you come to moderation to point out that now you've taken to attacking me since you've given up on debate. You've repeatedly claimed I've said things in that thread. I've asked you repeatedly to quote me. You've refused.

I've offered you a plethora of points to which you said you'd reply later, but instead returned to make comments about my mother. You have an opportunity to rejoin the debate. I've changed nothing of my views. Or you can choose to attack me personally. One of those is legal on NS.

EDIT: Self-defense? Amusing. Most would notice that suggesting that it was self-defense would be an admission that is an attack.

Enough already. Give us some freaking time to render a ruling.

And in the interest of disclosure in this thread and that one he has said this -
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11671130&postcount=199
was a personal attack. You'll notice my reference to every post was with evidence and directly in response to posts in the thread and things related to the thread.

According to him, it was not slinging dirt -
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11670752&postcount=165

Here is his entry into the thread. Mind you it included nothing more than this post and it was not on-topic.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11667484&postcount=90

He began the thread with personal attacks and ended with personal attacks.

Enough already. Give us some freaking time to render a ruling.

Sorry. In my defense, I'm on my way out the door for a four hour drive and was trying to say my peace. Nothing else he said riled me, but attacking my relationship with my mother was just too much.

Thanks for your time.

Jocabia

And in the interest of disclosure in this thread and that one he has said this -
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11671130&postcount=199
was a personal attack.It was a public dressing-down of another poster. Not so much a personal attack, but not particularly polite.


Now then, having looked things over, and read far more than I otherwise would have any interest in, this doesn't look especially actionable on any front. Poor debating form? Certainly. A little bit of jackassery? Indeed. Banworthy? I don't think so.

Should Jocabia's comment about his mother become regular fodder in other threads where it is completely irrelevent, then we can revisit this. Otherwise, I would simply keep in mind that not every poster needs, or deserves, to be responded to.

-The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

It's amazing how driving for four hours through a monsoon (as much as a monsoon can hit southern Indiana) will give you a little perspective. I'm actually a bit ashamed. I don't generally allow people to flip my switch and he did. I wish I had just laughed at the irony instead. Perhaps next time.